Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/455,910

AWNING-COUPLED PROTECTION COMPONENT FOR VEHICLES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Examiner
HAWK, NOAH CHANDLER
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Ikamper Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
950 granted / 1545 resolved
+9.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
34.7%
-5.3% vs TC avg
§112
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1545 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Drawings The drawings are objected to because they include reference characters or descriptions in a language other than English. See 37 CFR 1.84(p)(2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “the vehicle awning rail” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites “the first cover and the second cover” which renders the claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Rose in US Patent 2689002. Regarding Claim 1, De Rose teaches an awning-coupled protection component for vehicles coupled to a vehicle awning (24) to protect an awning from an external force, the awning-coupled protection component comprising: a frame part (19) coupled to a vehicle awning; and a cover part (17) coupled to the frame part to protect the vehicle awning, wherein the frame part includes: a coupling frame (A, see below) coupled to the vehicle awning and extending in one direction; a support frame (B) supporting the coupling frame and the cover part; and a fixed frame (C) installed the rear side of the cover part to couple the coupling frame and the support frame to the cover part, wherein the cover part is configured to have a predetermined angle with respect to the direction in which the coupling frame extends and to be inclined with respect to the coupling frame. PNG media_image1.png 614 335 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 2, De Rose teaches that one end of the coupling frame is connected to the fixed frame, while the other end is designed to be connected to the vehicle awning rail (at 32) and has a rail coupling part (33) with an awning insertion groove (37), and the awning insertion groove of the rail coupling part extends in the same direction as the direction in which the coupling frame extends. Regarding Claim 3, De Rose teaches that the pre-determined angle is defined as an acute angle formed between the coupling frame and the cover part. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose as applied to Claim 1 above. De Rose is silent on the materials used for the device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first material for the frame part and a second material for the cover part, and wherein the first material has higher rigidity compared to the second material, while the second material is lighter than the first material in order to provide a suitably protective device, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Youngblood, JR., Upton et al., Murray, Lowrey, Malott, and Bekaert teach awnings with protector pieces. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. NOAH C. HAWK Primary Examiner Art Unit 3636 /Noah Chandler Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 25, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599206
Umbrella Pole Brace Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599207
A Sliding Seat Assembly for an Umbrella
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582571
MOBILITY SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575998
CRUTCH WITH A CONTOURED GRIP AND A FOREARM SUPPORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575651
Umbrella
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+22.0%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1545 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month